 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, October 16, 2008, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the Metro Regional Center, Council Chamber, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
Chair Rex Burkholder called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm, and welcomed all participants.
Committee Members Rex Burkholder (Chair), Metro
Shirley Craddick, City of Gresham (Alternate)
Jeff Hamm, C-Tran
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver (Alternate)
Steve Stuart (Co-Chair), Clark County CommissionerStaff and Interested Guests Richard Brandman, Metro
Andy Cotugno, Metro
Kim Ellis, Metro
Doug Ficco, Columbia River Crossing
Crista Gardner, Metro
Dean Lookingbill--RTC
Tony Mendoza--Metro
Shoshanah Oppenheim, City of Portland
Susan Sale, Metro
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Paul Smith, PDOT
Mark Turpel, Metro
Sharon Zimmerman, WSDOTChair Burkholder indicated that there are several items on the agenda. One is an update on the Columbia River Crossing and a discussion of where that project is going. There will be a little presentation on what Metro has been doing on scenario planning. We have an update on the high capacity transit program. And, of course, we will have public comment.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2008 meeting as written. The motion was unanimously approved.
Rex Burkholder indicated that the meeting would start with a discussion of the Columbia River Crossing project. We will turn the discussion over to Richard Brandman and Doug Ficco to discuss this project.
Richard Brandman stated that Metro has loaned him to the Columbia River Crossing for an indeterminable amount of time through the final design and federal process. There is hope that it will not take two years. Richard remarked that he will be doing a variety of things on the project. Richard indicated that he will be co-directing with Doug Ficco; Doug is the Washington Director and Richard is the Oregon Director. There are a lot of challenges ahead of us on this project, but it certainly is exciting. We will try to make sure that all of the issues raised by all of the government-partners, as well as the general public, get resolved and we move forward.
Doug Ficco indicated there are some concerns raised by our partners. We will talk about items that have occurred since the LPA. We will also talk about the Governors’ Sponsors Council. Richard will talk about new source funding on the project.
Mr. Ficco handed out a discussion draft of the 121 conditions from our partners. Doug wanted to point out, before the discussion got started, that a lot of the conditions overlap. Some items will not have an easy resolution. We have put together a process for each of the 121 conditions.
Doug added that they are going to try to complete the FDIS by September 2009. A lot of decisions need to be made between now and then. Some decisions need to be made quickly. Obviously one of the decisions is the number of lanes. In order to get the number of lanes, we have to go through a validation of the travel demand models, which were completed Tuesday. Hopefully, we will have reports to our senior staff by next Thursday. At that time we will get senior staffs’ thoughts and take it to the projects’ sponsors. So far, we have seen a very positive response on the models. They had some recommendations and minor tweaking, but nothing to affect the project, which is good. Overall, they are very positive about the model.
Richard Brandman stated that some people thought the assumptions might be too conservative. The tolling models are very complicated. There is no right or wrong on the tolling models. Tolls get applied in the modeling world in a whole variety of different ways. Dick Walker from Metro’s modeling group is embracing those suggestions and in the next round of modeling those suggestions will be incorporated.
Jeff Hamm asked who are “they”.
Doug added that we had four experts from major MPOs throughout the country; one from PSRC, one from Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Sacramento. These experts are considered the best in the country in their fields. They were very impressed with the quality of work that has been done. There will be a report by the PSC. Not sure how it will be rolled out. We hope we can have the chair of the review panel come back and present it at the PSC. But, we don’t know if she has the time to return, but we hope that she can participate. Obviously, all of you who are on the PSC can ask questions.
Mr. Brandman remarked that because the issues were related to the Metro model we would also like to get her to come to Metro and meet with the Council. Metro had the same issues and I think it would be better to have an unfiltered conversation with the chair of the peer review and we are trying to work that out.
Mr. Hamm stated that he thought the City of Portland raised some issues regarding the forecasting models. What were some of the issues raised by the forecasting model?
Richard Brandman commented that some of the issues raised were from Metro as well. I’ll let the city talk about the city’s concerns. The concerns expressed at our hearings by the Council President and others were that some of the results seemed counter-intuitive. Like what would you have in a built highway project fewer cars going across the river and how does that relate to other aspects of the model, including greenhouse gases and was the toll looked at correctly. We asked if the assumptions for the price of gasoline were correct for the modeling process we did. That was the genesis for the Metro comments and those questions were asked at the peer review and discussed over the two days.
Shoshanah Oppenheim stated that all the concerns mentioned were shared by the City of Portland.
Andy Cotugno remarked that there are two different kinds of questions being raised regarding the modeling. One is the technical competency of the model to produce certain kinds of information. But, the other is policy questions. I don’t doubt the conclusion of the technical competency, and it is good to have a peer review to confirm that. I think it would also be useful to have this process highlight what does represent policy choices. Are we handling technically the tolling correctly in a modeling sense. Beyond that, there is a question of policy as to how high you want the toll. The answer to that question affects how much traffic that will use the facility; where else does the traffic go. These are policy choices, not just is the model working properly.
Richard Brandman added that he would talk a little about that when he gets into financing. These questions get into tolls and validity of the tolls and the substance of the tolls. I will come back to that when we discuss financing.
Ms. Oppenheim stated that the travel demand model underestimated traffic. She wants to understand the underestimation.
Doug Ficco remarked that he believes the underestimation is very small.
Shoshana Oppenheim commented that she wanted to know what changes would be made in the model or in the report.
Doug Ficco stated that it would be in the report.
Mr. Brandman stated that he understood we would change the model, but does not know the magnitude of the changes in the model.
Paul Smith remarked that the panel presented an oral summary of their findings at the end and made general observations first. The way the questions were asked, it appeared they were validating the procedures. Andy Cotugno was right on the mark regarding tolling. They were not asked if the $2 peak toll on the replacement bridge was the right amount. They did agree that the approach was valid.
Shoshanah Oppenheim commented that the city did not receive an invitation to the meetings and it is important for the City to be there.
Councilor Craddick asked if the model included tolling both bridges.
Mr. Brandman stated that it can. The will cover whatever policies or determinations there are. There have been tests of both bridges, but there have been no policy conclusions to toll both bridges.
Doug Ficco commented that a green house gas panel will be convened. This is a little tougher thatn we thought; there are not too many experts in the United States. One of the people of our staff is considered an expert. There are several people on the East Coast who are into greenhouse gases. Another group is convening about the structure crossing the river. The group will include people from FHWA, FTA, WSDOT and ODOT who know about bridges. They will study the reasonable types of bridges to be used on this crossing. We have a new structural engineering and architect groups who will take us through the process. We are very excited about these new people.
Richard Brandman stated that there is not a backroom type of process to figure out what the bridge is going to look like. The group that has met the last several days has looked at structural engineering issues; what types of bridges are even possible. The goal is to leave as many bridge types on the table as possible. Determining the bridge type will be a totally public process, which will play out for many months. It will be similar to what is going on for the Milwaukie Light Rail.
Mr. Ficco commented that other groups are continuing to meet. Citizen advisory groups will be meeting soon. There will be public outreach in late December or early January to get input from the public.
Ms. Oppenheim asked if there is a current timeline for all the project meetings
Doug Ficco remarked that a schedule of the upcoming meetings is being put together.
Richard Brandman said that there will be interim dates along the way. There needs to be a process to decide how many lanes there will be on the bridge, probably early next year. Discussing with project partners what is the right schedule. The bridge type is not as time pressured as the number of lanes.
Doug Ficco asked if there are any questions on schedule or direction of the project.
Shoshanah Oppenhaim added that the project should be mindful of the inputs to the decision by the City of Portland.
Jeff Hamm asked Doug to summarize where at the legislative level the tolling issue is.
Doug Ficco remarked that the legislative tolling work is being done on the Washington side. We hae started the process to put the Columbia River Crossing before the legislature. We won’t know until December exactly what the legislation is going to say. It has to go through the Governor before it goes to the legislature. When it gets to the legislature it may be different than what we put together. There is a lot we have to do to get the legislature comfortable. We have to have a lot of public outreach. Experts will be working on tolling this spring.
Royce Pollard asked if anyone has given any thought to I-205 tolling, both the pros and the cons, and what the routes might be.
Mr. Ficco commented that we are mulling over tolls on both bridges.
Rex Burkholder asked Richard to talk about financing.
Doug Ficco passed out a letter from the Governor and the Project Sponsors Council. Doug asked if there are any additional questions about this project. The first meeting is November 4 and the second meeting is December 5.
Richard Brandman noted that you are all aware that the project has been targeted at about 4 billion dollars. Roughly it is about 3 billion dollars highway and 1 billion dollars transit. There will be a variety of funding sources that will be explored. The sources will be discussed during the LPA process. The Federal funding could come in a variety of ways. Conversations he has been having with the Federal government indicate that there are big mega projects that fall outside the scope and there may be coalitions all over the country funding a portion of the cost of these mega projects. Federal Transit funds will also be pursued. Both states will be asked for funding. Tolls will provide a fair portion of the revenues for this project. There was one level of tolling that was analyzed in the draft EIS stage. There is a round of toll analyzing going on now and then there will be another round of toll study. Right now six tolling scenarios are being analyzed. One includes tolling both bridges; one includes variable rates; two for a higher rate on both bridges; and what is the implication for revenue gain if we had pre-opening revenue, maybe three years prior to opening the project (the date we would pick for that would be the statutory date, which would be when the first construction contract is let).
Steve Stuart asked if there is a baseline scenario that does not include tolling.
Richard Brandman answered yes.
Ms. Oppenheim asked is prices would vary on period of travel.
Richard Brandman indicated that he did not know.
Mr. Ficco remarked that they all have variable prices.
Mr. Brandman commented that every time we do modeling for this kind of work it gets progressively more detailed. There will be lots of points along the path where there will be tolling issues. It is very complicated.
Doug Ficco stated that hopefully he would have more information for the committee by the next meeting. The numbers are pretty raw.
Richard Brandman indicated that the last issue he wants to talk about is the FTA issue. The federal process is rigorous. To try and get Federal Transit funds you go through a competitive process. It is not a formula. New starts are scrutinized more. In this particular transit case, the FTA has a policy of stating that they want 50% local funding and 50% Federal funding. That is not the assumption this project has made going in. It also is not what the FTA has told us at this point. At this point, they have told us that they 20% cash on the table and not just the toll credits being talked about. However, they are being good partners with us in exploring ways that we can accomplish 20% cash in the project without necessarily raising new revenue. I met with the FTA senior staff and they do have some concerns about toll credits being used as the only match for this project. The door has been left open to use toll credits as a supplement to the cash match. They are not inclined to use toll credits for statutory match. This is one project. They demanded that it has to be tweaked, because it sounds like a highway project and a transit project. We actually agree with that. They need to go back and look at it as one project. We have a good chance that it will be accepted as one project. Two-thirds of the revenue are non- federal funds. This is one project, one financing plan and there should be one rating based on the local contribution. They were sympathetic to that argument. They did not embrace it.
Chair Burkholder remarked that Richard brings to this project the experience of working with these people for years. And, he is getting them to look at the project in a different way.
Richard Brandman indicated that he was done with his presentation.
Rex Burkholder stated that Steve Stuart, Royce Pollard and Sam Adams are on the steering committee. They can use this meeting as a sounding board. There is a lot we can do to help with this process.
Mayor Pollard indicated that dealing with the toll credits issue could be the deal breaker. We are looking at tolls, a raise in sales tax in Vancouver and Clark County and possible a 20% matching cash contribution. We will weigh in when it is time.
Steve Stuart commented that one thing we might be able to do is talk to the congressional delegation to get clarity from FTA on the toll credits.
Richard Brandman stated that we are having discussions with congressional staff right now about that. If we can be successful in the blended finance plan, we can put the toll credit issue to bed, because we wouldn’t need toll credits.
Steve Stuart remarked The more money we get from the federal government on the reauthorization, the more we will need that within the blended finance structure to at least have them recognize those toll credits.
Royce Pollard said that he doesn’t like Washington, DC, but he will go when it is time to go.
Chair Burkholder commented that there may be an opportunity to get funds from the economic stimulus dollars early next year. It is very vague at this point.
Shoshana Oppenheim asked if there have been any discussions with Governor Ted Kulongski.
Richard Brandman answered that not to my knowledge, but we will be sitting down with the Governor’s staff in a few weeks.
Rex Burkholder presented an update on Regional Growth. How can be live within our means and still provide all the things needed. We are looking at land use and transportation. It is an ongoing process we go through. MPAC and JPACT are having joint meetings. In 2009 we will make decisions about what we will try to implement. There is more information about this subject on the green paper handout.
Dean Lookingbill asked if there will be a revenue package after 2009/2010?
Chair Burkholder answered that we expect the legislature to act sometime in 2009. Then the next time after that would be 2010.
Rex Burkholder stated that next we will discuss High Capacity Transit with Dean Lookingbill and Crista Gardner.
Dean Lookingbill commented on HCT. He requested the committee look at the orange handout for the information he is presenting. We can design a system, but we need to pair with that a set of policies that look at land use and transportation and incorporate them in a plan. In terms of a decision, RTC will take action in December. Then we shift to C-Tran to look at it because of a financing policy decision. C-Tran would give it back to RTC and we would incorporate it in our plan. Are there any questions?
Shirley Craddick asked how a rapid transit bus is different in mixed traffic and a regular bus.
Dean Lookingbill answered that stations might be stepped up and special signal treatment.
Shirley Craddick asked if that depends on the road.
Mr. Lookingbill commented yes.
Chair Burkholder said a rapid transit bus system seems to work in Eugene.
Crista Gardner presented a slide show on HCT. In outreach, 150 people answered a questionnaire. Their responses stated there was need for more access to regional centers and employment areas; access to communities; travel through downtown and other bottlenecks; better flexibility and service times; access for poverty groups; concerns regarding safety and security. HCT is part of the Regional Transportation Plan.
Shirley Craddick asked what factors are used to prioritize.
Kim Ellis answered we will be developing criteria for the overall RTP next year.
Rex Burkholder commented that we don’t pretend that there are no people north of the river. The modeling together is very important.
Steve Stuart remarked that as part of this process, we started looking at I-205 for high capacity transit. It would bear the weight, but you would have to take lanes out. And the Federal and State governments say that is not going to happen. It is feasible from a weight standpoint, but other than that the answer is no.
Rex Burkholder said that with a $5 toll, there would be plenty of room.
Jeff Hamm stated that express buses could fit into HCT. Are you thinking of that at all?
Tony Mendoza said that we are grappling with this currently. Does a bus on the freeway qualify as HCT? That question is on the table.
Richard Brandman asked whether LRT is being considered in Clark County in the I-5 corridor.
Dean Lookingbill remarked that we are not pursuing LRT at this time. There is a lot of work to do. One of the next steps is to more firmly answer that question. It is not looking very feasible to put on the bridge.
Whatever is done for the CRC project, we would inner-connect with that.
Steve Stuart asked if we have you been looking at heavy rail on the Oregon side. Has there been an analysis of heavy rail capacity.
Crista Gardner stated that they have not looked into heavy rail yet.
Steve Stuart remarked to look at the rail crossing. At some point when they fix that we have to look at capacity.
Rex Burkholder observed that things may look different in a month.
Chair Burkholder asked if there was anyone wishing to make a public comment. There was no response. No one from the committee wished to make any additional comments.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 pm.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|